Rolling back the ball

[knock it close]

 

 

Why? Why wouldn't it test who can get around in the fewest strokes?

I have better s*** to do with my monday night than to continue to explain my opinion to you. Go back and read any of my other responses if you still aren't clear where I stand

[buckeyefl]

I see the USGA brain trust is up to their usual antics and releasing "groundbreaking" and "disturbing" information while playing political style games.. Mike Davis is simply disgusting and maybe he needs to be asking several different "why" questions and pull his head out of his rear end and realize that the golf world doesn't and shouldn't revolve around the game of the top .0001% or players in the world under fast conditions that most will never play on.

 

If Mikey feels the need to keep himself and his gang of egomaniacs relevant then simply set the threshold where we are now like they did with drivers. Fake problem solved.

[Shilgy]

Every.. Single... One.. Of the courses on the "obsolete" list in the posts above could be 8500 yards and not host a major. They do not have the room for the fans and tents and parking to host the event. Please stop with these woe is me tales.

 

Augusta #13 does not play today as Snead played it. He cut the corner over the trees because they were shorter. Courses change and evolve and so does every sport.

[Uhit]

btw wasn't Geoff the guy, who tried to manipulate driving distance statistics by highlighting the extremes on the long side, but not on the short side?

 

And as a course designer, he is biased anyway - even if he would try to stay unbiased...

 

 

Shack is a course designer in the same sense that a tick on a cow's rump is a dairy farmer.

 

Does this translate into a wannabe?

 

However, I took that claim from a comment from the Geoff fan 15th Club...

...maybe this was the wrong place to start, anyway.

[buckeyefl]

Because the only other thing left, if you don't adjust the golf balls, is to keep on adjusting the golf courses. Which is a crime against golf course architecture and the history of the game.

 

History of the game, huh? Well, let's take a closer look at that history.

 

In 1897 the third U.S. Open was held at Chicago Golf Club, which played slightly over 6,200 yards long.

 

The 1899 U.S. Open was held at Baltimore CC, a course of barely over 6,000 yards.

 

It wasn't until 1924, when Oakland Hills hosted the open, a course later dubbed "The Monster" by Ben Hogan, that a 6,800+ yard course would play host to our national championship.

 

You want to talk about an affront to the game's rich history? Whatever became of early U.S. Open venues like the aforementioned Baltimore CC? Or Midlothian, Brae Burn, Minikahda, Skokie or Inwood? That's right, they're all in the dustbin of history.

 

The first U.S. Open course to play over 7,000 yards was Oakland Hills, in 1937.

 

Was it an affront to the game's rich history and architecture that courses had been lengthened by as much as 800 yards in 40 years? Or was it merely the natural evolution of the game?

 

How long will a U.S. Open course need to be, in 2050? Will Shinnecock be able to host an Open? Merion? Will Riviera be able to host a Tour event?

 

Your silliness continues. You can play a tournament on any length course you like as all competitors play the same course. I know, revolutionary. Hopefully your head didnt explode.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Why? Why wouldn't it test who can get around in the fewest strokes?

I have better s*** to do with my monday night than to continue to explain my opinion to you. Go back and read any of my other responses if you still aren't clear where I stand

 

K. Sounds good.

I've read your posts, BTW. You think players should be forced to hit long irons to be "tested". I get it.

 

EDIT: Those long irons have to be hit into par fours rather than par fives or par threes or par nines. Otherwise, no test.

[PGArox]

Because the only other thing left, if you don't adjust the golf balls, is to keep on adjusting the golf courses. Which is a crime against golf course architecture and the history of the game.

 

History of the game, huh? Well, let's take a closer look at that history.

 

In 1897 the third U.S. Open was held at Chicago Golf Club, which played slightly over 6,200 yards long.

 

The 1899 U.S. Open was held at Baltimore CC, a course of barely over 6,000 yards.

 

It wasn't until 1924, when Oakland Hills hosted the open, a course later dubbed "The Monster" by Ben Hogan, that a 6,800+ yard course would play host to our national championship.

 

You want to talk about an affront to the game's rich history? Whatever became of early U.S. Open venues like the aforementioned Baltimore CC? Or Midlothian, Brae Burn, Minikahda, Skokie or Inwood? That's right, they're all in the dustbin of history.

 

The first U.S. Open course to play over 7,000 yards was Oakland Hills, in 1937.

 

Was it an affront to the game's rich history and architecture that courses had been lengthened by as much as 800 yards in 40 years? Or was it merely the natural evolution of the game?

 

How long will a U.S. Open course need to be, in 2050? Will Shinnecock be able to host an Open? Merion? Will Riviera be able to host a Tour event?

 

If those venues are regarded as adequate tests of major championship golf in 2050, they will continue to serve as hosts. If not, they will join Brae Burn and Skokie in the dustbin of history.

 

I am in no way emotionally attached to great golfing venues or the history of the game. My interest is seeing modern pros tested to the greatest degree possible. If that means some rich dude buying some land in a place like Washington County, Wisconsin, and commissioning a golf course architect to build a brutish 8,000 "monster" of a course (with his own money, by the way) then I'm all for it.

[15th Club]

• Pretty much every pro-rollback advocate I am aware of feels that it is unnecessary to roll back most recreational golfers by "20%",
  

 

If that ever happened, I (and millions of others) will quit golf. I would have to move up to the ladies tees and ladies would have nowhere to go.

 

So the multilayer urethane balls that we are concerned about haven't helped you. Yet you're worried about losing them?

[15th Club]

Because the only other thing left, if you don't adjust the golf balls, is to keep on adjusting the golf courses. Which is a crime against golf course architecture and the history of the game.

 

History of the game, huh? Well, let's take a closer look at that history.

 

In 1897 the third U.S. Open was held at Chicago Golf Club, which played slightly over 6,200 yards long.

 

The 1899 U.S. Open was held at Baltimore CC, a course of barely over 6,000 yards.

 

It wasn't until 1924, when Oakland Hills hosted the open, a course later dubbed "The Monster" by Ben Hogan, that a 6,800+ yard course would play host to our national championship.

 

You want to talk about an affront to the game's rich history? Whatever became of early U.S. Open venues like the aforementioned Baltimore CC? Or Midlothian, Brae Burn, Minikahda, Skokie or Inwood? That's right, they're all in the dustbin of history.

 

The first U.S. Open course to play over 7,000 yards was Oakland Hills, in 1937.

 

Was it an affront to the game's rich history and architecture that courses had been lengthened by as much as 800 yards in 40 years? Or was it merely the natural evolution of the game?

 

How long will a U.S. Open course need to be, in 2050? Will Shinnecock be able to host an Open? Merion? Will Riviera be able to host a Tour event?

 

If those venues are regarded as adequate tests of major championship golf in 2050, they will continue to serve as hosts. If not, they will join Brae Burn and Skokie in the dustbin of history.

 

I am in no way emotionally attached to great golfing venues or the history of the game. My interest is seeing modern pros tested to the greatest degree possible. If that means some rich dude buying some land in a place like Washington County, Wisconsin, and commissioning a golf course architect to build a brutish 8,000 "monster" of a course, with his own money by the way, then I'm all for it.

 

I don't want to see a bifurcation of the Rules of Golf. But not infrequently, I'd like to see a bifurcation of the game.

 

I'd keep all of the clubs who have hosted USGA national championships before 2000, and the USGA, and all of its championships, assets and history, and Rules.

 

You would get the PGA, the PGA Tour, and the TPC courses, and Erin Hills and Chambers Bay. You can make your own rules. You can do your own ball testing, and equipment certification, etc. You can get rid of all equipment rules if you want. Let players load up bags with 25 clubs, and throw them on a cart. GPS distance detection; onboard televisions. Balls that let everybody look forward to next year's models that will go farther than last year's models.

 

I might insist that you not call your game "Golf," but rather come up with your own name. Sandy Tatum suggested, "Cartball."

 

Edit.: Just to say that I might like to play Chambers Bay and Erin Hills someday. If I am allowed to play USGA-conforming equipment, and not Cartball equipment, I'd be willing to pay for the pleasure of playing.

 

Deal?

[PGArox]

Because the only other thing left, if you don't adjust the golf balls, is to keep on adjusting the golf courses. Which is a crime against golf course architecture and the history of the game.

 

History of the game, huh? Well, let's take a closer look at that history.

 

In 1897 the third U.S. Open was held at Chicago Golf Club, which played slightly over 6,200 yards long.

 

The 1899 U.S. Open was held at Baltimore CC, a course of barely over 6,000 yards.

 

It wasn't until 1924, when Oakland Hills hosted the open, a course later dubbed "The Monster" by Ben Hogan, that a 6,800+ yard course would play host to our national championship.

 

You want to talk about an affront to the game's rich history? Whatever became of early U.S. Open venues like the aforementioned Baltimore CC? Or Midlothian, Brae Burn, Minikahda, Skokie or Inwood? That's right, they're all in the dustbin of history.

 

The first U.S. Open course to play over 7,000 yards was Oakland Hills, in 1937.

 

Was it an affront to the game's rich history and architecture that courses had been lengthened by as much as 800 yards in 40 years? Or was it merely the natural evolution of the game?

 

How long will a U.S. Open course need to be, in 2050? Will Shinnecock be able to host an Open? Merion? Will Riviera be able to host a Tour event?

 

If those venues are regarded as adequate tests of major championship golf in 2050, they will continue to serve as hosts. If not, they will join Brae Burn and Skokie in the dustbin of history.

 

I am in no way emotionally attached to great golfing venues or the history of the game. My interest is seeing modern pros tested to the greatest degree possible. If that means some rich dude buying some land in a place like Washington County, Wisconsin, and commissioning a golf course architect to build a brutish 8,000 "monster" of a course, with his own money by the way, then I'm all for it.

 

I don't want to see a bifurcation of the Rules of Golf. But not infrequently, I'd like to see a bifurcation of the game.

 

I'd keep all of the clubs who have hosted USGA national championships before 2000, and the USGA, and all of its championships, assets and history, and Rules.

 

You would get the PGA, the PGA Tour, and the TPC courses, and Erin Hills and Chambers Bay. You can make your own rules. You can do your own ball testing, and equipment certification, etc. You can get rid of all equipment rules if you want. Let players load up bags with 25 clubs, and throw them on a cart. GPS distance detection; onboard televisions. Balls that let everybody look forward to next year's models that will go farther than last year's models.

 

I might insist that you not call your game "Golf," but rather come up with your own name. Sandy Tatum suggested, "Cartball."

 

Deal?

 

Deal. I will call my game Modern Golf.

[15th Club]

...

...

...

Deal. I will call my game Modern Golf.

 

Honestly; I think we'd be making each other very happy with this.

[Uhit]

Because the only other thing left, if you don't adjust the golf balls, is to keep on adjusting the golf courses. Which is a crime against golf course architecture and the history of the game.

 

History of the game, huh? Well, let's take a closer look at that history.

 

In 1897 the third U.S. Open was held at Chicago Golf Club, which played slightly over 6,200 yards long.

 

The 1899 U.S. Open was held at Baltimore CC, a course of barely over 6,000 yards.

 

It wasn't until 1924, when Oakland Hills hosted the open, a course later dubbed "The Monster" by Ben Hogan, that a 6,800+ yard course would play host to our national championship.

 

You want to talk about an affront to the game's rich history? Whatever became of early U.S. Open venues like the aforementioned Baltimore CC? Or Midlothian, Brae Burn, Minikahda, Skokie or Inwood? That's right, they're all in the dustbin of history.

 

The first U.S. Open course to play over 7,000 yards was Oakland Hills, in 1937.

 

Was it an affront to the game's rich history and architecture that courses had been lengthened by as much as 800 yards in 40 years? Or was it merely the natural evolution of the game?

 

How long will a U.S. Open course need to be, in 2050? Will Shinnecock be able to host an Open? Merion? Will Riviera be able to host a Tour event?

 

If those venues are regarded as adequate tests of major championship golf in 2050, they will continue to serve as hosts. If not, they will join Brae Burn and Skokie in the dustbin of history.

 

I am in no way emotionally attached to great golfing venues or the history of the game. My interest is seeing modern pros tested to the greatest degree possible. If that means some rich dude buying some land in a place like Washington County, Wisconsin, and commissioning a golf course architect to build a brutish 8,000 "monster" of a course, with his own money by the way, then I'm all for it.

 

I might insist that you not call your game "Golf," but rather come up with your own name. Sandy Tatum suggested, "Cartball."

 

Deal?

 

But what if he might insist, that you not call your game "Golf", but miniature Golf?

 

 

btw could you please confirm whether the USGA is a non profit organization...

 

...and whether the director of equipment received close to a seven figure salary. :polling:

[clevited]

Omg, just saw 3 idiots whine and argue about rolling back the ball on golf channel.

 

-if they roll back the ball, they can separate it from amateur golf all they want but they should know a lot of golfers are going to want to be "legit" and will still be basically forced to play a rolled back ball.

 

-stop making fairways made of concrete!

 

-add obstacles if they want to limit the bomb and gouge.

 

-driving the ball 300+ yards and accurately isn't easy to do. One guy in particular acted like that takes no talent.

 

-these bombers learn risk and reward and most importantly they learn to scramble really really well. The field is just better than it was in the past. Kids are growing up wanting to bomb it like Tiger, and now DJ. They are finding out that anyone CAN bomb them, it isn't a special physique that makes you able, or special talent, it just requires practing swinging fast as you can like Tiger.

 

-todays players are getting better at the most important thing when playing on tour, controlling the thing between your ears. Look at all the rookies holding their own with tested veterans.

 

Leave the dang ball alone. Rules already are in place that will keep the equipment from making drive distance increase much at all. The pro golfers are just getting better on average.

[North Butte]

• Pretty much every pro-rollback advocate I am aware of feels that it is unnecessary to roll back most recreational golfers by "20%",
  

 

If that ever happened, I (and millions of others) will quit golf. I would have to move up to the ladies tees and ladies would have nowhere to go.

 

So the multilayer urethane balls that we are concerned about haven't helped you. Yet you're worried about losing them?

 

The multilayer urethane balls have definitely helped my game compared to the inferior balls we had in 1990.

 

If I played the course I play now with a Dunlop DDH I’d never keep a single approach shot on a green without landing it 15 yards short.

 

And if I used a Tour Balata back then I’d have never reached a GIR in the first place.

 

I love the current equipment, the modern ball has added a great desl to my enjoyment of the game.

[buckeyefl]

USGA announces they will "monitor data" after announcing their intentions in a dramatic, over the top fashion, then today they produce cherry picked information confirming their agenda, umm I mean fears,

 

Shocking.

 

Facts, not fear , follow.

 

 

“Having carefully reviewed the data, we do not believe the trends indicate a significant or abnormal increase in distance since 2003 or from 2016 to 2017,” Monahan informed Tour members in a memo Monday.

He also wrote: “While this may seem significant when taken in isolation, it has not been uncommon over the past 15 years to see significant gains or losses. Since 2003, there have been three instances where a significant gain was recorded between years, and five instances where the average decreased.”

Monahan suggested last year’s distance gain should be attributed more to the players than to equipment.

“We believe this increase in club head speed is mostly attributable to a combination of factors, such as increased player athleticism and fitness, physical build of the player, enhancements in equipment fitting and the proliferation of launch-monitoring capabilities,” Monahan wrote. “It is interesting to note that since 2003, the average age of a Tour member has gone down, and the average height has gone up.”

James Hahn gets it.

"Breaking news. In addition to limited flight balls, the USGA plans to ban working out, proper diet and swinging faster than 105mph. They are also planning on removing the 3 point shot in the NBA."

"If we were playing a match, would you rather hit 7 iron to my 9 iron OR hit hybrid to my 5 iron? Oh and by the way, I can still hit par 5s in two with 3 wood. You can't."

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Maybe this works better:

 

Let's expedite this:

 

A: Why is there concern over the

golf ball

?

B: Goes too far.

A: Why do we care how far the

ball

goes?

B: Because, uh, courses are becoming obsolete.

A: How could they become obsolete?

B: Because, uh, uh, the designers didn't foresee . . . uh, the clubs hit into greens by long hitters.

A: Haven't great players overpowered courses for generations?

B: Yeah, but now courses will have to take up more real estate Think of the environment.

A: Why do courses have to be longer?

B: Because scoring will be lower if they aren't lengthened.

A: So what?

B: Well, uh, the players from yesteryear will have their scoring records broken.

A: So, what?

B: I don't want that to happen.

A: Sorry, but that's not a good reason.

B: I want the best to be tested, and the only way to test them is to force long iron shots.

A: They can hit them on par fives and par threes.

B: Nope. Has to be into par fours.

A: That makes zero sense.

B: You don't understand golf! The classic layouts!

A: We talked about that.

B: Why not make the course 4500 yards and the hole 15", then

A: I didn't propose a change, you did.

B: I don't have time for you, peasant. *phew* Go fly Delta Airlines for life.

A: I feel like we're afield from the issue.

B: The scores will be too low, and I don't like that.

A: Understood.

[clevited]

Maybe this works better:

 

Let's expedite this:

 

A: Why is there concern over the

golf ball

?

B: Goes too far.

A: Why do we care how far the

ball

goes?

B: Because, uh, courses are becoming obsolete.

A: How could they become obsolete?

B: Because, uh, uh, the designers didn't foresee . . . uh, the clubs hit into greens by long hitters.

A: Haven't great players overpowered courses for generations?

B: Yeah, but now courses will have to take up more real estate Think of the environment.

A: Why do courses have to be longer?

B: Because scoring will be lower if they aren't lengthened.

A: So what?

B: Well, uh, the players from yesteryear will have their scoring records broken.

A: So, what?

B: I don't want that to happen.

A: Sorry, but that's not a good reason.

B: I want the best to be tested, and the only way to test them is to force long iron shots.

A: They can hit them on par fives and par threes.

B: Nope. Has to be into par fours.

A: That makes zero sense.

B: You don't understand golf! The classic layouts!

A: We talked about that.

B: Why not make the course 4500 yards and the hole 15", then

A: I didn't propose a change, you did.

B: I don't have time for you, peasant. *phew* Go fly Delta Airlines for life.

A: I feel like we're afield from the issue.

B: The scores will be too low, and I don't like that.

A: Understood.

 

This might be the best thing I have read in my entire life! No I'm not joking. Well done sir.

 

Edit: or miss? I just noticed you have a unisex name.

[storm319]

• Pretty much every pro-rollback advocate I am aware of feels that it is unnecessary to roll back most recreational golfers by "20%",
  

 

If that ever happened, I (and millions of others) will quit golf. I would have to move up to the ladies tees and ladies would have nowhere to go.

 

So the multilayer urethane balls that we are concerned about haven't helped you. Yet you're worried about losing them?

 

No he is worried about the 2-piece solid core balls that have structurally remained consistent for 50 years that most amateur hacks play that would also be rolled back.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

James Hahn gets it.

"Breaking news. In addition to limited flight balls, the USGA plans to ban working out, proper diet and swinging faster than 105mph. They are also planning on removing the 3 point shot in the NBA."

"If we were playing a match, would you rather hit 7 iron to my 9 iron OR hit hybrid to my 5 iron? Oh and by the way, I can still hit par 5s in two with 3 wood. You can't."

 

But, Mr. Hahn, what of the classic layouts and scaling?

[Roadking2003]

Because steadily, ANGC #13, and #15, are becoming less and less like the tests they were intended as.

 

I have to stop and pinch myself every once in a while, to remind myself that I am arguing with people who would sooner choose:

(a) buying $25 million or so worth of extra land, or:

(b) basically allowing #13 and #15 be turned into Par 4's,

rather than changing the specs on golf balls.

 

Seriously people? Change Augusta National? Change The Old Course? Instead of very slightly changing some multilayer urethane-covered golf ball specifications?

 

To me, and many others, it is like changing the Mona Lisa instead of changing the light bulbs in the Louvre.

 

I have to stop and pinch myself every once in a while to remind me that Masters scoring is flat over the past 30 years (notice the red trendline).

[Roadking2003]

 

Nope. All straw man arguments. I'm saying don't change. Don't buy more land. Please read.

What would happen if #13 and #15 at ANGC were effectively turned into two-shot, par four holes? Would the player who played the best not still win?

 

Average score on #15 last year was 4.935. That would be a brutal par four, but par is just a number.

 

BTW, #2 at 575 yards was a lot lower at 4.671. There is a lot more to golf than long drives and yardage.

[Roadking2003]

So are you not disappointed that historic venues such as Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, Myopia, or even say Cherry Hills have lost the ability to host your national open?

 

Cherry Hills could easily host another open. It has not lost that ability.

[tnord]

this reminds me of the story i read about harry vardon last night.

 

he encountered some blowhard during his rehab that went on and on about how he could beat vardon. vardon got everybody at the rehab center in on the joke, and went out and deliberately blew the match - which was tough to do because the guy sucked. then he got a couple other guys to come pose as golf reporters and interview the guy about his triumphant defeat of the great harry vardon. of course the mark went on braggadociously about how great he was and was told the story would be published in the next issue of golf digest or whatever.

 

the butt of the elaborate joke went out and bought every issue, then contacted the editor furious that it didn't run. he eventually asked vardon about it, to which vardon gave a polite but patronizing response allowing a window for him to see through that the joke was on him.

 

so i'm all for bifurcation. let little timmy have his flubber ball and trampoline driver so he can feel good about himself.

 

"oh yes Mr Butte....great drive sir. you truly are a wonder sir."

[Shilgy]

Clearly you have nothing left to contribute and have resorted to taking potshots at an always polite poster.

 

Well done for you!

[gvogel]

• Pretty much every pro-rollback advocate I am aware of feels that it is unnecessary to roll back most recreational golfers by "20%",
  

 

If that ever happened, I (and millions of others) will quit golf. I would have to move up to the ladies tees and ladies would have nowhere to go.

 

So the multilayer urethane balls that we are concerned about haven't helped you. Yet you're worried about losing them?

 

The multilayer urethane balls have definitely helped my game compared to the inferior balls we had in 1990.

 

If I played the course I play now with a Dunlop DDH I'd never keep a single approach shot on a green without landing it 15 yards short.

 

And if I used a Tour Balata back then I'd have never reached a GIR in the first place.

 

I love the current equipment, the modern ball has added a great desl to my enjoyment of the game.

Your own game doesn't count worth bumblebees in this discussion.

[North Butte]

• Pretty much every pro-rollback advocate I am aware of feels that it is unnecessary to roll back most recreational golfers by "20%",
  

 

If that ever happened, I (and millions of others) will quit golf. I would have to move up to the ladies tees and ladies would have nowhere to go.

 

So the multilayer urethane balls that we are concerned about haven't helped you. Yet you're worried about losing them?

 

The multilayer urethane balls have definitely helped my game compared to the inferior balls we had in 1990.

 

If I played the course I play now with a Dunlop DDH I'd never keep a single approach shot on a green without landing it 15 yards short.

 

And if I used a Tour Balata back then I'd have never reached a GIR in the first place.

 

I love the current equipment, the modern ball has added a great desl to my enjoyment of the game.

Your own game doesn't count worth bumblebees in this discussion.

 

Pretty sure Adam Scott gets good results from ProV1 too. Does that count?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

this reminds me of the story i read about harry vardon last night.

 

I don't think you could've started it any better to let us know where it was going.

[bladehunter]

Maybe this works better:

 

Let's expedite this:

 

A: Why is there concern over the

golf ball

?

B: Goes too far.

A: Why do we care how far the

ball

goes?

B: Because, uh, courses are becoming obsolete.

A: How could they become obsolete?

B: Because, uh, uh, the designers didn't foresee . . . uh, the clubs hit into greens by long hitters.

A: Haven't great players overpowered courses for generations?

B: Yeah, but now courses will have to take up more real estate Think of the environment.

A: Why do courses have to be longer?

B: Because scoring will be lower if they aren't lengthened.

A: So what?

B: Well, uh, the players from yesteryear will have their scoring records broken.

A: So, what?

B: I don't want that to happen.

A: Sorry, but that's not a good reason.

B: I want the best to be tested, and the only way to test them is to force long iron shots.

A: They can hit them on par fives and par threes.

B: Nope. Has to be into par fours.

A: That makes zero sense.

B: You don't understand golf! The classic layouts!

A: We talked about that.

B: Why not make the course 4500 yards and the hole 15", then

A: I didn't propose a change, you did.

B: I don't have time for you, peasant. *phew* Go fly Delta Airlines for life.

A: I feel like we're afield from the issue.

B: The scores will be too low, and I don't like that.

A: Understood.

 

Your amazing well thought out response is .....” so what “!?

[Shilgy]

• Pretty much every pro-rollback advocate I am aware of feels that it is unnecessary to roll back most recreational golfers by "20%",
  

 

If that ever happened, I (and millions of others) will quit golf. I would have to move up to the ladies tees and ladies would have nowhere to go.

 

So the multilayer urethane balls that we are concerned about haven't helped you. Yet you're worried about losing them?

 

The multilayer urethane balls have definitely helped my game compared to the inferior balls we had in 1990.

 

If I played the course I play now with a Dunlop DDH I'd never keep a single approach shot on a green without landing it 15 yards short.

 

And if I used a Tour Balata back then I'd have never reached a GIR in the first place.

 

I love the current equipment, the modern ball has added a great desl to my enjoyment of the game.

Your own game doesn't count worth bumblebees in this discussion.

How it affects 99.99% of the golfers does not matter?

[knock it close]

Maybe this works better:

 

Let's expedite this:

 

 

A: Why is there concern over the

golf ball

?

 

B: Goes too far.

 

A: Why do we care how far the

ball

goes?

 

B: Because, uh, courses are becoming obsolete.

 

A: How could they become obsolete?

 

B: Because, uh, uh, the designers didn't foresee . . . uh, the clubs hit into greens by long hitters.

 

A: Haven't great players overpowered courses for generations?

 

B: Yeah, but now courses will have to take up more real estate Think of the environment.

 

A: Why do courses have to be longer?

 

B: Because scoring will be lower if they aren't lengthened.

 

A: So what?

 

B: Well, uh, the players from yesteryear will have their scoring records broken.

 

A: So, what?

 

B: I don't want that to happen.

 

A: Sorry, but that's not a good reason.

 

B: I want the best to be tested, and the only way to test them is to force long iron shots.

 

A: They can hit them on par fives and par threes.

 

B: Nope. Has to be into par fours.

 

A: That makes zero sense.

 

B: You don't understand golf! The classic layouts!

 

A: We talked about that.

 

B: Why not make the course 4500 yards and the hole 15", then

 

A: I didn't propose a change, you did.

 

B: I don't have time for you, peasant. *phew* Go fly Delta Airlines for life.

 

A: I feel like we're afield from the issue.

 

B: The scores will be too low, and I don't like that.

 

A: Understood.

 

 

 

Cherry picking a handful of logical points and then adding hyperbole doesn't make you any more brilliant